Pan Liqun, 18, is a high school student in Jinan, capital city of Shandong Province, China. Mr. Pan created a new traffic light system according to which color-blinded people can cross the streets safely without the need to distinguish between green, yellow and red. This revolutionary invention has earned him tremendous reputation in the world and he has been awarded the first prize by the Annual Innovative Achievements Exhibition for International High School Students. However the big award didn't give him happiness and excitement. Instead he was recently overwhelmed with sadness and despair. Due to the insufficient time used in preparing for the China National Entrance Examination to College, he got only 379 points, a score far below the minimal requirement for college admission. So far no Chinese universities accepted him despite his unusually strong background in scientific creativity and innovation.

How does American top universities admit high school students? How do they weight the importance of SAT and GPA versus that of non-academic performance of an applicant? If Pan Liqun were in the US, would he be admitted by American universities?

Yong Tang, a Washington-based correspondent of People's Daily, recently conducted interviews respectively with Georgetown University Assistant Vice President for Communications Erik Smulson, Yale University Public Affairs Director Helaine S. Klasky, University of Michigan Office of Undergraduate Admissions Senior Associate Director Chris Lucier, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Director of International Collaboration and Agreement Isabel Wong. Gary G Li, an undergraduate student from Princeton University was also interviewed on these topics. Their answers may shed light on the outdatedness and irrationality of admission policies of Chinese universities.

Georgetown University: there is no formula for creating a living, breathing community of scholars and leaders

Erik Smulson: Gorgetown's Office of Undergraduate Admissions is committed to an approach to college admissions. Applications are read by committees, which are comprised of various members of the Georgetown community including faculty members, deans and students. The committee does not use formulas or employ cut-offs, but rather reads each application individually and weighs the pros and cons of each situation. For example, a student who has excelled in difficult high school courses and exhibits great leadership potential may be more appealing to the committee than a student who has scored perfectly on standardized tests but has not challenged himself academically and/or personally.

Admission's committees are concerned with academic preparedness and intelligence, of course, but of equal importance are factors such as community involvement, innovativeness, talent and strength of character. The admissions office has the ability to create a living, breathing community of scholars and leaders --a place where students learn from each other's differences and similarities. There is no formula for creating such an environment -- it is up to the thoughtful, serious and collaborative work of the committees to admit students to Georgetown University who will bring a variety of strengths and perspectives to campus.

Yale University: we are always open to evidence that a student has the potential to be a leader

Helaine S. Klasky: We actively seek students who are very strong in science and engineering, and Yale is one of the best schools in the nation in these areas. Our science and engineering graduates enter the best programs in the world for advanced degrees.

We feel that both academic performance and creativity are extremely important, and the students we accept must show strong evidence of both. We are always open to evidence that a student has the potential to be a leader.

Yale has no minimal requirement for SAT and GPA performance of the applicants for admission, though the great majority of our students are among the highest in the world for both these qualifications.

University of Michigan: we recognize that this student is a risk taker

Chris Lucier: The primary purpose of our admissions process is to build a vibrant educational community of students who are academically excellent, accomplished in extracurricular endeavors, and broadly diverse. The University of Michigan values students who demonstrate intellectual creativity, curiosity, and an overall thirst for knowledge. We strive to enroll students involved in scientific discoveries and inventions as long as they have the academic preparation to be successful in our competitive academic environment.

It is impossible to weigh the importance of one over the other. In our holistic review process, both are very important to us. When we review a file we first consider whether the student has the academic preparation to be successful at the University. We certainly seek students who are very strong academically as demonstrated by quantitative measurements, but we also seek students who are intellectually curious and creative, demonstrate passion in certain academic areas, or who are risk takers. The foundation of

Our evaluation is a comprehensive assessment of the student's GPA, the rigor of their curriculum, the school student attends, and standardized test scores, but our review of their academic preparation and potential goes much further. We gain other important information about the student's academic interests and achievements through the guidance counselor and teacher recommendations, the student's essays, and extracurricular involvement. This is where we can discover much more about the student and their ability to add to our educational community.

If our evaluation of the student's GPA, curriculum, and test scores indicates the student has the academic preparation to be successful, yet not as high as most of our other students, we may still admit the student. We have students who have aggressively challenged the most rigorous curriculum at their school, not received the highest grades in that curriculum and had a test score that was not as competitive as other students, and we've admitted those students. We recognize that this student is a risk taker. They are willing to challenge themselves. Generally these students test well, but maybe they had a bad day, or perhaps they don't take standardized tests well. We've had students win regional, state, or national science fairs or competitions in events such as robotics, but they did not have the most competitive GPAs or test scores, and we have admitted them.

We've examined their results in the fairs or the competitions. We've sensed their passion concerning certain academic areas. Their teachers have addressed the student's intellectual passion and creativity, their leadership and their commitment and drive. We've had students involved in research with research scientists. These students have helped present research findings at national conferences or been listed as part of the research team in scholarly publications, but due to the time they spent in the research, their GPAs or test scores were not as competitive. We've admitted these students because we recognize their intellectual passion, creativity, and knowledge of research methods and presentations.

We use GPA, curriculum, and standardized test scores as one of many tools to make comprehensive, individualized, and holistic evaluation of the student's academic preparation, potential, and their ability to be part of and contribute to our educational community.

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: the admission processes build on the expectation for high achievement in all the areas of the record that is presented

Isabel Wong: The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign greatly values distinctive capacities for producing excellence. This applies in all realms of knowledge and creative activities, including of course scientific and technical fields where discovery and invention are the hallmarks of extraordinary achievement.

Admission is based in evaluation of the total record that is presented. National examination scores and grade point average are important indicators of potential, with actual achievement (GPA) in demanding course work and within a curriculum with considerable breadth being given more weight than measures that focus principally on aptitude.

However, other aspects of a record also merit and receive serious scrutiny and weight, including those demonstrating leadership capabilities across a significant range of undertakings. In many fields, such as the arts, the primary weight of evaluation is given to the applicant's portfolio of completed creative work or creative performances, and those charged with admission decisions would similarly give weight to achievements in the sciences and technological fields that demonstrate an extraordinary aptitude for scientific creativity and discovery. Honors programs for truly exceptional students give very high weight to demonstrated creativity and capacity to work across the boundaries of many areas. In selecting these most extraordinarily talented individuals the qualitative components of the record that reflect creativity, capability for innovation, and leadership abilities receive the greatest weight.

National examination scores and classroom achievement are given considerable attention as dimensions of the overall record. It is highly unlikely that a student would be admitted with both low national test scores and low grade point, but the student would have the opportunity to provide evidence supporting admission based on other indicators of showing the potential for achievement at an extraordinary level.

The University does not have a required or rigid absolute minimum for achievement on national examination scores or grade point average, and the different colleges of the campus vary from one to another in the guidelines they provide for expected achievement and in specific admission processes. However, the admission processes for all the campus colleges build on the expectation for high achievement in all the areas of the record that is presented, including national test scores and grade point average, as well as leadership accomplishments, portfolio evaluation, or the qualities demonstrated through an interview that might be of focus within a particular college or admission case. For admission applications where a particular area of the record falls short of the normal expectations for performance on national examinations and grade point average, there will need to be truly compelling evidence in other aspects of the record for a positive admission decision to be reached.

Princeton University: It all depends on what on your application makes you memorable to the admissions officer who reads it

Gary G Li: As a general phenomenon, those students with the creativity and capacity for new discoveries and inventions generally have high SAT scores and GPAs. There are, I'm sure, students who just may not be good test-takers, or may have been nervous the day that they took the SAT. Furthermore, I think that there's a huge difference between those who have great minds and large intellectual capacities compared to those who do well in school. A high GPA and SAT score, to me, just means that the student studied hard and worked hard in high school. A great invention or scientific discovery, on the other hand, shows that the inventor or discoverer not only worked hard, but also has creativity and a flexible mind. They may not work well in a classroom setting because they try to think "outside the box," so to speak. They might not necessarily learn best when they're forced to learn reading comprehension one way or sentence completion another.

I think that Princeton understands this and thus looks at all parts of a prospective student's application. There are many more factors that go into college admission than GPA and SAT scores (such as instrumental prowess, athletic skills, leadership qualities, etc.) and so I'm sure there are plenty of students who were offered admission for reasons other than high GPA or SAT scores. (I would say that finalists for the annual Intel Science Awards - honoring top discoveries and inventions among high school students - are often offered admission regardless of GPA or SAT scores, but often, these students have top-notch GPAs and SAT scores).

There is no minimum SAT score for any college in the U.S. Each individual college or university publishes a range of scores that fifty percent of the student population falls into. For example, fifty percent of Princeton students might have an SAT score between 2000 and 2200 (just an example, because I don't know the statistics for the new SAT). However, if a student shows exceptional ability in some specific area - such as coming up with a great invention - then a low SAT score might easily be overlooked by the admissions committee. There generally is a SAT score cut-off line that's recognized by parents and high school college counselors (for the old SAT, my guess is it was probably somewhere around 1300+ out of 1600) when students who score below that are highly discouraged from applying, but even according to most universities, they never will reject a student solely on poor SAT scores or a poor GPA.

On the old SAT (out of 1600), I scored a 1520. My GPA was 98.15 or so but more meaningful in my high school was that I was only fourth out of eighty students. I personally, as well as my parents, believe that the reason I got into Princeton was not because of an outstanding academic record, but rather because of the cello. My test scores were decent, my class rank was a little bit low, my extracurriculars in high school didn't stand out, but because I was a member of the Pennsylvania All-State Orchestra for two years and was selected to the Pennsylvania Governor's School for the Arts (one of three cellists state-wide), I think I was catapulted into contention. Naturally, this is speculation, but I am sure there are students in the orchestra who were accepted based on their instrumental abilities, not their performance in the classroom.

I think that the biggest factor in whether a student does well his first year in college is not his high school GPA or his SAT scores, but the difficulty of his high school. That is, how different the study environment is at Princeton as compared to high school. I, for one, went to a very easy public school. The school was both small, unselective, and was very lenient giving grades. Hence, even though my GPA looked ok when I applied, and my SAT scores should have predicted that I would be average when I got to Princeton, I struggled. For me, the intensity of competition was on a whole new level. I never had to study for a test in high school, I would just listen in class and end up with a good grade. That kind of attitude got me in trouble my first year because the majority of what's on exams at Princeton is not just what comes out of the professor's mouth, but how you are able to apply what you've heard to new problems. So personally I can attest to the importance of getting into good study habits in high school (that means, doing practice problems, reading everything the professor gives many times, taking good notes, going to class, etc.)

On the other hand, I had a few other friends who were already well adapted to the intensity of Princeton coming out of high school. Often, these are students who come from highly selective high schools who had to study hard in high school just to get good grades so they could think about applying to Princeton. These students fit in right away. When others went to the library to study, they followed because that's what they did in high school. These students had the right mind-set coming in, so had little adjusting to do. In fact, one such student from the class of 09 even told me that he slept more at Princeton than he did when he was in high school because there was much LESS work!

The difference caused by which high schools students graduated from gradually disappears by usually the second year of college though. Another one of my roommates - who went to school in Taiwan until sixth grade - struggled his first year, but turned it around his second year. Another friend, who also did really poorly his first year ended up with all A's both semesters of sophomore year. This just means that it's not impossible to turn things around after a difficult first year.

As for non-academic performance of the student applicant, I think that non-academic performance depends on numerous factors. Are you willing to stay up late to study? Do you need to go to every class to do well on exams? Do you want to join as many clubs as you can? Do you like sports or would you rather dance? How much time do you need to study well for an exam? Non-academic performance, for most students, I think, really depends more on willingness than academic performance. Because students live on campus 24/7, there is plenty of time in the day to do all the activities you'd like to do. As a result, it doesn't seem to me that there's a correlation between how well a person does in the classroom and how many activities a student does. Usually, those who participated in more activities in high school will participate in more activities in college and those who participated less in high school will participate less in college. Yet, I have seen cases where the former had the better grades, despite being in more clubs and doing more activities.

What exactly will get you into the top universities? To me, and from what I have seen in fellow students at Princeton, is that the most important thing is to stand-out. Be individual. Have something in your application that the admissions officers won't forget. I often think that when you try to get good grades, get good test scores, and do every possible extracurricular activity. You're just like the 90% of other Princeton applicants who aren't accepted. It's a bit counter-intuitive for someone who's good all-around not to be accepted, but there have been too many examples of this logic at work. The problem is that only the top of the top apply to the ivy league schools - they're not schools that people apply to just for fun to see if they might get in. thus, 90% of the applicants are all well-rounded, active students; They all look the same on paper. So I believe that to get in, something has to stand out. For me, I think it was my cello playing. For several other orchestra members, I can safely say it was their musical talents as well. For a roommate my first year, it was being an Intel Award Finalist. For another, it was hockey playing. For a third, it was piano proficiency and national recognition in Canada. The list goes on. If a student does something great - such as coming up with a new discovery or a new invention - they'll make an impression on the admissions officers' minds - so that when decision time comes around, they'll remember the student's name.

So I don't think it's possible to say definitively whether it's academic or non-academic performance that will get you in, but which you've done something special in. If you were a member of the US International Math Olympiad or International Physics Olympiad team, then it's doing something special academically that will get you in. If you were a member of the National Youth Orchestra, or are nationally ranked at Debate, then it's non-academic performance that will get you in. It all depends on what on your application makes you memorable to the admissions officer that reads it. (END)

By Yong Tang, a Washington-based correspondent of People's Daily